What Screen Time Can Really Do to Kids' Brains

Too much at the worst possible age can have lifetime consequences.

Screen time is an inescapable reality of modern childhood, with kids of every age spending hours upon hours in front of iPads, smartphones and televisions.

That’s not always a bad thing: Educational apps and TV shows are great ways for children to sharpen their developing brains and hone their communication skills—not to mention the break these gadgets provide harried parents. But tread carefully: A number of troubling studies connect delayed cognitive development in kids with extended exposure to electronic media. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that American children spend a whopping seven hours a day in front of electronic media. Other statistics reveal that kids as young as two regularly play iPad games and have playroom toys that involve touch screens.

Saturation and long-term consequences

When very small children get hooked on tablets and smartphones, says Dr. Aric Sigman, an associate fellow of the British Psychological Society and a Fellow of Britain’s Royal Society of Medicine, they can unintentionally cause permanent damage to their still-developing brains. Too much screen time too soon, he says, “is the very thing impeding the development of the abilities that parents are so eager to foster through the tablets. The ability to focus, to concentrate, to lend attention, to sense other people’s attitudes and communicate with them, to build a large vocabulary—all those abilities are harmed.”

Put more simply, parents who jump to screen time in a bid to give their kids an educational edge may actually be doing significantly more harm than good—and they need to dole out future screen time in an age-appropriate matter.

Between birth and age three, for example, our brains develop quickly and are particularly sensitive to the environment around us. In medical circles, this is called the critical period, because the changes that happen in the brain during these first tender years become the permanent foundation upon which all later brain function is built. In order for the brain’s neural networks to develop normally during the critical period, a child needs specific stimuli from the outside environment. These are rules that have evolved over centuries of human evolution, but—not surprisingly—these essential stimuli are not found on today’s tablet screens. When a young child spends too much time in front of a screen and not enough getting required stimuli from the real world, her development becomes stunted.

And not just for a while. If the damage happens during these crucial early years, its results can affect her forever.

Much of the issue lies with the fact that what makes tablets and iPhones so great—dozens of stimuli at your fingertips, and the ability to process multiple actions simultaneously—is exactly what young brains do not need.

Tablets are the ultimate shortcut tools: Unlike a mother reading a story to a child, for example, a smartphone-told story spoon-feeds images, words, and pictures all at once to a young reader. Rather than having to take the time to process a mother’s voice into words, visualize complete pictures and exert a mental effort to follow a story line, kids who follow stories on their smartphones get lazy. The device does the thinking for them, and as a result, their own cognitive muscles remain weak.

The brain’s frontal lobe is the area responsible for decoding and comprehending social interactions. It is in this corner of the mind that we empathize with others, take in nonverbal cues while talking to friends and colleagues, and learn how to read the hundreds of unspoken signs—facial expression, tone of voice, and more—that add color and depth to real-world relationships.

So how and when does the brain’s frontal lobe develop? Not surprisingly, the most crucial stage is in early childhood, during that same critical period, and it's dependent on authentic human interactions. So if your young child is spending all of his time in front of an iPad instead of chatting and playing with teachers and other children, his empathetic abilities—the near-instinctive way you and I can read situations and get a feel for other people—will be dulled, possibly for good.

Life has no on/off switch

Have you ever seen a mother chuckle as her baby tries to “swipe” a real photograph, or punch their fingers onto a poster or book as if it were a touchscreen? It may seem cute, but it points to something much deeper in the child’s brain—an internalization that all actions have an immediate effect, and all stimuli elicit a quick response.

This is true in the on-screen world, but nowhere else. When every finger swipe brings about a response of colors and shapes and sounds, a child’s brain responds gleefully with the neurotransmitter dopamine, the key component in our reward system that is associated with feelings of pleasure. Dopamine hits in the brain can feel almost addictive, and when a child gets too used to an immediate stimuli response, he will learn to always prefer smartphone-style interaction—that is, immediate gratification and response—over real-world connection.

This pattern mimics, in a less intense manner, the dangerous cycle psychologists and physicians regularly see in patients with drug and alcohol addictions.

Don’t trash those tablets for good

Despite the danger that overexposure to smartphones can pose for young brains, there are a lot of benefits to letting little ones use technology. Once a child is over the age of two, feel free to allow limited screen time—think an hour, max, of playing with tablets and iPhones each day—to help develop coordination, hone quick reactions, and even sharpen language skills. As with all the other toys and tools available to your developing child, smartphone use should stay in moderation, and never stand in for human interaction or real-world face time.

The bottom line? Power off regularly to help your child understand the clear boundaries between the virtual world and the real one.

I come from a time before the internet.
T.V. was the culprit in those days. It was every bit as
addictive as the net. People warned of it then.
I was addicted to it.
At the age of 12 I lost a ton of weight because I wanted to
be just like my favorite action/adventure hero's on T.V.
who always succeded. Nobody told me it was unreal.
I moved to a new neighborhood and there was no time to
buy a new wardrobe. The neighor kids laughed at my ill
fitting clothes. I was shocked and crestfallen. I decided to
stay in my room with my T.V. I only reluctantly left it when I
had absolutely no choice. I found no joy in socialization.
People could see this and reacted in kind. I stayed this way ever since. It could be said my life was totally wasted.
It was "lived" through the T.V.
I sympathise with the two "Slenderman" girls. They also
thought a fictional character was real. They were on a
fool's errand like me. I hope the system is gentle with them. A life is a terrible thing to waste.

Every day is a new beginning , don't let the mistakes of your past influence your present.. Have faith that things will be better , when you truly believe thats when you'll see the improvement . Stay strong :)

I knew that technology had been growing amongst younger viewers but I didn't know that it could effect their development. I will definitely take this article into consideration when I have children in the future.

That is one of the benefits of becoming a doctor and being a subject matter expert. An individual at any level can write an evidence informed article, but it just so happens when doctors do it, they are held to ethical standards and principles that require them to share/report based on evidence. So, although her article has not cited specific articles or research, or expertise in the area and undoubtedly the hours she has put in to studying and researching the topic are reflected in her piece.

Not to be a pill, but that is not what I learned in school Health Care Research and Ethics classes, and Princeton U doesn't agree either with respect to an academic article:
"Note that facts are different from ideas: facts may not need to be cited, whereas ideas must always be cited."
https://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/cite/ ;)

Well it depends also where are you writing your opinion/ ideas/ research... If its a random article online, an opinion in a blog, a scientific journal etc... But yes. A few key sources here and there would be nice even in the most simple of media. Sorry English is not my native language. :)

Yep. I have grandkids with iPads and it's hard for me to see how there are enough studies with follow up to definitively assert negatives or positives. I would like to see the cites just because of that lol - I want to try to keep my family as normal as possible.

Actually you are very wrong, the very nature of science hinges on the idea of peer review, clear status hypothesis, explain scientific experiment with control subject and control variant with the ability that others in the scientific community could duplicate the experiment and get the same results. Any other method is purely haunches and Victorian Ideal of Sherlock Holmes of observe and therefore uncover the truth. We course know that mere observation is not enough to draw an conclusion across all cultures norms, every age, and every ethnic genetic make up. I can observe that I leave my food out and it draws flies. It doesn't mean that I should conclude that spontaneous generation is responsible even though every scientist could reproduce this experiment and get the same result without manipulation. No you are dead wrong in your conclusion that exposure to a given observation is enough to draw scientific conclusion as such that media causes brain damage.

I find the author to be dead on. This is from personal experience with my 3 year old daughter. I completley cut out cell phone and TV after concerns of autism. The difference is very clear and my daughter is well on her way to recovering from these effects.

EXACTLY!!! There is no evidence supporting their thesis. Not to mention the author's supposed picture was obviously poorly photo shopped. If you expect us to believe what they are saying, they should have graphs, videos any kind of scientific evidence. They should also have a credible science institution support and repeat the study.

I came here to say the same thing, so thank you for beating me to it. Plenty of studies now out showing the benefits of screen time. You cannot assert opinions just because you hold some particular position. If you're going to say something positive or negative, then back it up with actual evidence. Otherwise just state that it's an opinion piece. Frankly I found this article worthless conjecture.

I'm shocked and disappointed that a doctor would give the advice that any amount of screen time for children can "sharpen language skills". There are countless studies (not to mention my personal observations throughout 10+ years of working with children) that illustrate clearly the hindrance that media can cause in the development of speech and language in children.

Screen time most certainly can help a child sharpen language skills. Kids with autism and speech delays sometimes depend on those apps on the tablet to help them learn to speak and express themselves because sometimes interaction with others just isn't enough. I have a daughter on the spectrum and another suspected the same with a speech delay and it's helped both of them immensely. My daughter with autism is 4 and is reading now and she is so happy.

I don't know the author and have no affiliation to the article, but my read is that the author defined the "critical period" as being from birth to three years old. Most of the discussion deals with this period. The last comment about it become okay for screen time AFTER 2 years old is heavily qualified by limited and supervised use of screen time to sharpen language skills. I've read others who have recommended no screen time till after age 3. Human beings have evolved over millions of years and since we didn't have screens until the advent of tv (and later ipads), I'm in the camp that will err on the side of delaying screen time exposure until a child can fully understand and appreciate the difference between the real world and screen time, which could possibly be 3 years old but believe it really depends on the particlar child's development.

I was born in 61, my son in 2007. TV was my addiction, I read a lot, shy kid though good thing I lived on a street where all the kids 3-18 played together. My son started on the PC early, I read a lot to him and his mother and all the aunt, uncles and their kids socialized with him. As millions of kids are addicted to the game Minecraft, so is my son. There are two guys from England on YouTube that he follows religiously, Stampylonghead and his friend Squid. My son can be heard mimicking their English and Scottish accents. They never cus. Our son has an easy way about him, making friends easily. I suppose for any research there are exceptions, but maybe they aren't.

"Educational apps and TV shows are great ways for children to sharpen their developing brains and hone their communication skills"
Are you kidding me. Many studies show that apps and TV do not improve the communication skills of babies, toddlers, and preschoolers. In fact they often cause delays, sometimes huge ones. The best way to improve a child's communication skills is to communicate with them. No app or TV show can replace the dynamic of having a real face to face, human interaction. I'm really disappointed that in an article talking about other concerns with screen time in the very young, that you'd so irresponsibly suggest that they improve communication skills. You've done such a disservice to every Early Intervention team in North America. Sigh.

Language can be a challenging thing. Especially for young children with autism.
My son is on the spectrum. High functioning and brilliant, but his two major challenges were social and language processing.
The iPad with apps and YouTube helped my son develop passions, language and social skills which, with our help and coaching, were one of the things that helped him develop.
EIBI and the teachers at the Child Study Centre where he went to daycare were hugely instrumental in Liam's amazing progress over the past two years, and I wish to take nothing from them in their efforts and success with Liam. I would add, however, that Liam's reading ability and exposure to apps that teach social skills, dealing with emotions through evaluating options, and so many other interactive games contributed greatly.
Liam taught himself the Russian alphabet by watching a YouTube video. He taught himself shapes, colours, letters, numbers and all about planets and the solar system.
We have managed his tech time, but probably more generously that we do for our other son who is typically developing.
Every kid is different. There is no one size fits all approach to things.
Some kids thrive on social play and sports, some kids thrive on intellectual challenges, some kids thrive on nature.
It is good to have ideas and a variety of approaches, but it is not good to just follow something that someone said you should follow without knowing if that is the right thing for your child.
There are some general principles, but we need to evaluate how our children learn, what is their dominant intelligence, are they visual, auditory or kinesthetic, and approach things accordingly.

Did you only read that one line of that paragraph? The author says screen time should be VERY limited, and states that it is just an aid, not a replacement. They have in no way make it seem like you should just hand them iPads at age 2 and say "there ya go! Have fun!" It's true that VERY limited use can indeed aid in communication skills.

I wouldn't give a toddler an iPad but I wouldn't tell someone it's permanently affecting the toddler's brain without evidence.

Playing a video game is not addictive. Addiction is a word thrown around. Heroin is addictive. A video game is what some people really enjoy. If a child spends all day reading and doesn't go outdoors, is it addiction? If a child spends all day painting, is it addiction? Or are you applying the word addiction to things you don't approve of?

I teach preteens every day, and I can tell you first hand that addiction is an absolutely appropriate term. My students get angry, irrational, and fearful to have their tech taken away from them. I have had some start screaming, hyperventilating, and crying when they are required to go without their phones for a time period. They are terrified that they will miss out on something (game events and updates included). These are all the classic signs of addiction: anxiety when the object of addiction is removed (or even the thought of it), inability to cope without it (they are incapable of entertaining themselves), and anger or rage at the person who removed the object of addiction. A rational brain will tell you that if there are negative consequences for doing something, don't do it. An addicted brain will tell you "To hell with consequences, this is more important".

A quick glance shows research that says it's too soon to know AND at least two studies, from 2015 and 2016, suggesting IMPROVEMENT in skills in autistic children.

As I said above, it's my understanding at this point that there simply has not been enough time to collect enough empirical data to definitively state concrete effects. I personally believe that with the wildcard of good parenting out there, the jury is out, and it may well depend on each particular child, their needs and capabilities. But I have no cite for that ;). But that is what I personally believe from observation.

I couldn't agree more, Limba and Bill. How long have tablets been around? It has only been a couple of years since they have gone mainstream. It is far too premature to even suggest "lifelong" effects. There hasn't been enough time to conduct proper double-blind studies to make such claims! Remember when eggs and consumable cholesterol, saturated fats was bad and sugar was fine? There are too many variables to make such presumptions. Life is short, and it's all about balance... And to those who disagree that ANY screen time is detrimental (and scoff at the possibility that any of it could be beneficial), think about the future and where it's going. Technology is at the forefront of every known discipline. Best of luck to you.

I agree 100% with Limba and Lula here. There are many variables at play and the parents role is a huge one. Technology is how our society is evolving and I see benefits and opportunity for harm. In cases where tech is used in place of human interaction, it's obviously detrimental. But when used appropriately within the multitude of interaction one has with young children, it's a bit of a stretch to claim irreversible and long-lasting brain damage.

Every generation has claimed that anything """kids today"" use, have, or do that they didn't in their childhood must be inherently bad and destructive. The collective pearl-clutching of middle-aged amnesiac a$$holes about "what the world is coming to!" and how young people should be oppressed, punished, and controlled so that they turn into carbon copies of themselves is disgusting, and does not come form science.

I'm no scientist, but smartphones, ipads, and tablets have only become relevant within the past 10 years. Meaning... No child has reached adulthood yet!!! So how would specialists remotely know the long term effects? I'm not being argumentative. I just think I'm making a simple math observation?? Lol

This is a site with "Psychology" in its name. So it needs to be based on science, or its just opinion. If this site were called "Opinion Today" then I wouldn't care... No data, no psychology. No story.

I don't think most of us are saying that the idea of giving electronics to children is bad is incorrect necessarily, but this article doesn't cite a single study, so it's opinion, not science. It's not enough to just wave your hands at a subject and cite common sense in a scientific field like psychology. You need data in the form of studies. This is a fluff article.

This article seems politically influenced to me. I have 3 kids under 3. We do no screen time, none until 2.5. My 3 yo watches an episode of Mister Rogers once a week, on saturdays while I settle my twin babies to nap. I settled on this after watching complete meltdowns after 5 minutes of her favorite Trepsi cartoon. We listen to cds instead. I have 3 degrees in education and 15 years teaching experience, 10 in early childhood. Nothing can replace human interaction. I find the first line of this piece offensive. My home is an oasis where my kids can relax and play without the distractions of screens. Life is completely doable without screens.

As a mother of twin 3 year olds, I use the iPad to elicit immediate response and containment so I can get my chores, meal prep and housework done without them acting like a two member wrecking crew. What do your kids do while you are cooking dinner or doing laundry? How do you keep them from tearing through your home when you need them winding down?

Although I do not have twins, I do have ten children. My children play with wooden blocks, work puzzles, color, use play dough, build blanket forts, lay out train tracks, read books, or many other fun but calm activities while I am fixing meals, doing laundry, or cleaning house. I also get the children involved as much as posssible. They enjoy helping and feel important when they know they are contributing to our family. I start my two year olds with putting away silverware from the dishwasher, stacking the clean plastic dishes, folding washcloths, and being the "delivery man" when I'm cleaning (deliver these shoes to your closet, this book to the bookshelf, etc.) Although it takes a little longer to make a meal with the little ones "helping" you will reap the benefits years later when your 8-10 year old can do meal prep on their own. And my kids love doing it.

Another calming activity that stimulates their learning processes is listening to books in tape. Your local library most likely has an assortment of age-appropriate selections.

Yes, I have 4 kids and my best advice for anyone who has toddlers, young children, tweens, teens, etc....is delay screen access and use for as long as possible. the minute a screen is introduced, your child will change. Let them be kids, explore their world (that means making forts in the family room, and making a mess cooking in the kitchen!). What happens when a kid has a screen in their face is that they lose interest in all the other fun, more appropriate kid play and it changes them, changes their interests and personality (makes them much more self-focused, impatient and less social). I could go on and on...you get the point. This is not based on any scientific study that I have done, just parenting for the past 20 years and observing those around me!

I have taken Child Development. Understanding how development works, I know the dangers of technology. When kids swipe a screen parents get excited but really a poorly trained monkey can do that. It is far more impressive when they learn to share, empathize and self regulate all of which a screen can't teach them. In fact working in a daycare we can accurately assess which child has too much screen time because they are delayed in all the above mentioned developmental milestones listed above. Even toys now a days do not allow for imagination or cognitive development (Baby Einstein) which is just a marketing ploy and your child learn nothing because they are not able to actively interact with the screen. Our future depends on our children developing and toys computer software actually inhibit positive development. Beware the marketing ploys.

If you're offended or demanding a source or citation, you are clearly looking for a excuse to defend your choice to give your child screen time. Its ok. But look inward. We all know screen time is bad. Dont need a citation. Put your kids outside already and you wont feel the need to defend your choice.

Exactly K. Seems they need twenty years to say "oh shoot, I screwed up my kids!". Lifelong consequences originate very early on and the domino effect will not wait for a longitudinal study. Provide screen time at your own risk.

Try KidzCoins screen time trading & reward coins - created by 2 mums and backed by Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health as well as health experts, Dr Arthur Cassidy, headteachers etc. Available from www.kidzcoins.co.uk or via Amazon